Haines v. Holley, 69--348

• Decision Date: 08 April 1970
• Docket Number: No. 69--348,69--348
• Citation: 234 So.2d 152
• Parties: Mac S. HAINES, as Tax Assessor of Pinellas County; O. Sanford Jasper, as Tax Collector of Pinellas County; and Fred O. Dickinson, Jr., as Comptroller of the State of Florida, Appellants, v. Charles R. HOLLEY and Natalie S. Holley, his wife, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 152

234 So.2d 152

Mac S. HAINES, as Tax Assessor of Pinellas County; O. Sanford Jasper, as Tax Collector of Pinellas County; and Fred O. Dickinson, Jr., as Comptroller of the State of Florida, Appellants, v. Charles R. HOLLEY and Natalie S. Holley, his wife, Appellees.

No. 69--348.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 8, 1970.

Richard L. Stewart, Acting County Atty., Clearwater, for appellants.

Benjamin K. Phipps, Tallahassee, of White, Phipps & Furnell, Clearwater, for appellees.

PIERCE, Judge.

This is an appeal by the taxing officials for Pinellas County from a summary judgment entered in favor of the appellees Charles R. Holley and Natalie S. Holley, his wife.

On June 7, 1968, the Holleys purchased a parcel of real estate in Belleair, Pinellas County. The seller netted $32,734.65 from the sale after the adjustments called for in F.S. § 193.021(8) F.S.A. had been made. Tax Assessor Haines assessed the property at a value of $40,210.00 for the year 1968. On July 18, 1968, a return of this property was made by the new owners to the local Tax Assessor declaring the fair market value to be $32,734.65, the net proceeds of sale paid to the seller. On the same date the Holleys also filed notice with the local Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the Board of Tax Equalization, that they wanted to appear and protest the excessive assessment of taxes on the property. Upon hearing held, the Board refused to disturb the assessment.

The Holleys then filed the instant action in the lower Court seeking to enjoin the Tax Collector from collecting any taxes from them based upon an assessment of more than $32,734.65 for the property, and seeking to direct the Tax Assessor to assess the property at a valuation not to exceed that amount. Defendants' answer denied any over-assessment of the property. The Holleys moved for summary judgment, attaching affidavits from the purchasers and seller to the effect that at the time of the purchase and sale they were willing but under no obligation to purchase or sell the property and that the transaction was in every sense at 'arms length'.

After hearing on the motion the trial Court entered summary judgment finding inter alia that F.S. § 192.04, F.S.A. does not preclude the Tax Assessor from considering the sale of the property on June 7, 1968, 'for the reason that it was sufficiently close in point of time to validly reflect the value on the statutory evaluation date of January 1, 1968'; that the Tax Assessor must consider all the factors listed in F.S. § 193.021, F.S.A.; and that the Tax Assessor is not permitted to arbitrarily ignore the actual selling price in a bona fide sale. The Court ordered the Assessor to reassess the property for the tax year 1968 in an amount not to exceed $32,734.65; and enjoined the Tax Collector from collecting from the Holleys any taxes for the year 1968 above that required on an assessed valuation of $32,734.65.

The tax officials have appealed to this Court, contending that the lower Court erred in entering summary judgment for the reason that the Tax Assessor was required by law to assess the property on January 1, 1968, and the sale did not occur until June 7, 1968. We agree and reverse.

F.S. Section 192.04, F.S.A. provides that all real and personal property shall be subject to taxation on the first day of January of each year. F.S. § 193.11, F.S.A. provides inter alia that the county tax assessor in each county shall ascertain all taxable real estate...